Welcome judgement, abstract caveat

Podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia, who has been hauled over the coals for some controversial and distasteful comments on social media, has got some relief from the court but is not off the hook. He had secured protection from arrest following several FIRs registered against him and now, the Supreme Court has allowed him to produce his shows as long as they don’t violate “traditional Indian norms.” The court said his podcast should be deemed suitable for all age groups. It also felt that “regulatory measures” are needed against the abuse of the right to free speech and expression in social media to ensure that the use of “filthy language” and “vulgarity” did not pass off as humour in programmes streamed online. While maintaining that there must be a way to ensure that the programmes adhere to “well known moral standards” of Indian society, the court told the government to explore measures that would strike a balance between upholding the right to free speech and reasonable restrictions on it imposed by the Constitution.

The court did well to allow Allahbadia to resume his profession, as the earlier blanket ban on his podcasts, which he is entitled to produce as part of his right to life and right to free speech and expression, was unusual. The court had in the past disfavoured such blanket bans as such “gag orders have a chilling effect on free speech.” It has told Allahbadia that “if he posts tweets in violation of law”, he would be answerable for it. The challenge is that “traditional Indian norms” are a vague standard that changes from state to state and region to region, and from time to time. Judgements on the basis of such vague norms often become subjective, personal, and even political, as it tends to happen in these times. Adding to the confusion is that in cases like Allahbadia’s, it is obscenity – which many would say lies in the eye or mind of the observer – that is to be judged. The question is whether we have objective legal tools to make a judgement.

The court has favoured a regulatory scheme that would respect freedom of speech and operate within the framework of “reasonable restrictions” imposed by the Constitution. The government would welcome that proposition as it would only like stricter regulation on anything. But the laws on obscenity and related offences already exist, as seen in the fact that cases have been registered against Allahbadia and others. The real issue is the scope of the law and its interpretation in particular cases. Importantly, there should be room for laughter in society, and the law should not silence it.